Darwin’s “Well, Dress Me Up And Call Me Science!” Tour Comes To Canada
June 29, 2008 · By Matthew Campbell
In comparison to it’s American release, the Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed movie which challenges the dogma of Darwinian evolution has come to Canada with less of a ripple but alongside the symbolic victory of Mark Steyn over the “BC Human Rights’ Tribunal” and its thought crimes division. Using the tried and true methods of decrying anything that deviates from the notion that all life magically appeared on the Earth at some unpredictable point in the past and then morphed into the species we see today, the Darwinian apologists attacked the movie as being too friendly to deism and discussing ideas that *aren’t real science*. The former argument is trivial, overly emotional and frankly not worth discussing and more than saying that Atheists are always going to hate every other religion out there since one of their key beliefs is that their faith is being held back by all the rest, even if they merely exist (the complex behind this is another blog for another day by another blogger).
As for the latter though, wouldn’t it be interesting if we, for one moment, got truly investigative and turned the tables on the all too comfortable Darwinians who have become yet another group to hijack our education system for their own self-preservation and motives? After all, in the noise of bitter reviews, intimidating threats and exhaustive and bewildered requests to anti-Darwinists to just shut up, I think the evolution debate has failed to examine a key component: whether the theory of Charles Darwin is truly something worth wasting time on in the science class to begin with. After all, a physicist who learns anything from F=MA to the hydrogen fusion reaction that is continually taking place at the centre of our sun to even string theory is able to take that knowledge and apply it to the benefit of mankind in a strictly physical sense. Even if the highly controversial string theory proves to be a dead end, what it would tell us about how elementary particles don’t interact would help us to zone in on other understandings and ultimately give us a better way to understand the very microscopic. In turn, that would allow us to apply our knowledge one day to advancements that might, for example, allow for microscopic computers that write data onto quarks, just as F=MA gave us the first building blocks we needed to put a man on the moon. Chemistry need only need mention of companies like DOW or Pfizer to prove its contribution to our modern society and even a late-comer to quantitative analysis, biology, will soon prove invaluable to an entire generation of baby-boomers who are in the midst of retiring from the workforce currently. In fact, the driving force behind science is not just getting to have a better understanding of the world around us, from the very small to the very large, but also being able to apply that knowledge in some fashion.
When it comes to the necessity to teach Darwinian evolution in a grade 7 classroom, or high school, or even university, what is the purpose? I mean, we can keep clubing each other over the head about how detrimental it is to society for the other side to get a voice in on the debate, but as I noted above, the debate always ends up in the realm of the meta-physical; things pertaining to the existence, or lack thereof, of God! Has evolution allowed us to come up with any great invention or advancement? Is it so essential to our understanding of biology or chemistry that twelve year-olds need to understand it if they are going to pass their high school biology or chemistry courses? Or are we all fooling ourselves here, using findings that more properly belong in the hit-or-miss fields of archeology and social science to indoctrinate young minds with what is practically nothing more than a contemporary, social statement?
The fact is that evolution is still very much stuck in in the past, and will continue to be until it can offer actual testifiable evidence of one species giving way to another over the course of two or more generations. It’s all about the findings in the dirt, the rock layers and the pretty pastel pictures that appear in text books. The funny thing about history is that as it becomes more remote, the possibilities of the imagination grow exponentially. It’s also the truth that if evolution was so essential for our children to learn, I should have never graduated from university, nor anyone else who currently walks to Earth and believes that evolution deserves a more skeptical analysis, since the understanding of that knowledge should have been essential in understanding everything from RNA-DNA reactions to the immune system. Evolution should have to be to biology what F=MA is to physics if the official story is to be believed, wherein a student that fails to acknowledge the very foundations cannot comprehend or excel while studying the more advanced topics.
So as Expelled comes out this weekend in a fraction of the theatres it did in the US back in April, you’ll probably see a few fireworks fly as the Darwinians campaign to remain the only kid on the block. What the movie will continue to do though is extend a debate that has lasted for over 150 years and certainly isn’t going away; a debate where a lot of questions could be and should be asked. Ultimately, the most dangerous of those question for Darwinians isn’t “Can you prove it?”, although they certainly hate that one. Rather, if they want to spend valuable class time teaching my son or daughter about their great theory about nothing, the worst thing they could hear back from my kid is “So what?” The runner up might sound something like “Why are you so concerned about us hearing from the competition?”
In Toronto there will be a African-centric
School right in a African area that the media avoids mentioning when the Gun murders and drug crimes are reported from this kill-zone .
But the Public School Board has a serious problem coming down the pipe , they refuse to teach the religous views for creation and only embrace the view that the Afican students will be told that they came from Apes and Monkeys .
Odd how the OHRC and Ms. Hall are so quiet about African racism but yet she rushed to protect the “Alleged” harm done to Illegal Fisher’s who the Police failed to arrests because they were deemed as Non-Canadian ASIANS .
The Illegal fishing was done by a minority group of people and that’s when Hall and Aconda bursted a artery to seek revenge and cut-n-gut those White/Racist canadians pushing Asians into the lake.
Alas , when AIDs was killing Africans the leftists stayed mute , but once the Middle-Class/White/gay/males were dropping like flies the Left finally saw it as a crisis and then forced the U.N. to spew lies about the Global crisis for AIDS that will wipe-out heterosexuals.
The U.N. now has told the truth that Africa and gays were the true victims of AIDS, so now the Global Warming Crisis will wipe-out everyone unless we stop exhaling and spewing CO2 for the plants to turn into Oxygen.
“The fact is that evolution is still very much stuck in in the past, and will continue to be until it can offer actual testifiable evidence of one species giving way to another over the course of two or more generations.”
What definition of “species” are you using when you’re stating this?
Goodness, this blog is jam-packed with bold-faced liars.
Do you people pick pockets in real life?
Has evolution allowed us to come up with any great invention or advancement?
In a word, yes. The theory of evolution forms the basis for our understanding of paleontology and microbiology, for starters. Understanding man’s evolutionary past increases our efficacy with drug testing.
it can offer actual testifiable evidence
-Yawn- We’re way past that point. We have seen evolution in action in the laboratory, and we’ve seen it in paleontological records. But if God put the dinosaur bones there just to test our faith, then I guess you have a point. No scientific way of denying the hand of God, after all. Convenient.
Why are you so concerned about us hearing from the competition?
Because you are still debating Galileo while we are discussing Einstein and Hawking. To take your physics example a step further, we’ve fully accepted that the Earth revolves around the Sun, and moved on to general relativity and string theory. Your geocentric views aren’t science, and we shouldn’t be teaching it.
I’m disappointed. I thought this was going to be about Mark Steyn’s victory over the thought Nazi’s.
If there’s one thought people can take from your article, it should be this:
“It’s also the truth that if evolution was so essential for our children to learn, I should have never graduated from university…”
Abattoir wrote: We have seen evolution in action in the laboratory
No, no you haven’t! Links please. There has been gene splicing in the lab but I don’t remember seeing an experiment showing evolution (i.e. a sexually reproducing species evolving such that it cannot reproduce with a member of the ancestor species for two generations or more) The two generations or more requirement comes from that fact that some species can breed that produce infertile offspring (mules, etc).
Matthew, there is so much nonsense in your post that it’s really a waste of time trying to refute your misconceptions one by one. PLEASE read at least a ‘fundamentals of evolution’-type article or book (or even a few paragraphs in the wikipedia article!) before you create bogus arguments and statements based off of your mentally fabricated conception of the scientific method and evolution.
A simple google search into ‘examples of speciation’ will provide you with REAL discoveries to ponder over (yes, with evidence!).
You continue to use tired, refuted, cliche creationist ‘arguments’ in your blog posts, and claim oppression when people rightfully call you out on your nonsense. I highly doubt you have even a rudimentary understanding of the theory of evolution, so I challenge you: in your own words, please briefly explain what YOU think evolution is all about. I believe this would aid the discussion amongst the commenters who seem to be frustrated at how exactly to begin trying to argue your points. Honestly, your posts sometimes read like well-written satire, so this would help us out!
Zeppo,
I’m afraid you have a rather misguided idea of evolution. The changes you speak of would require thousands of generations to take place. How, then, would you propose testing whether the descendent species has retained the ability to procreate with the anceestor species, when the members of said ancestor species are long dead?
You mentioned mules, which are the offspring of a donkey and a horse. Donkeys did not come from horses, and horses did not come from donkeys. They share an evolutionary past, but they would not meet the definition of ‘evolution’ you seem to subscribe to. Neither is the evolutionary ancestor of the other.
The emergence of so-called ’superbugs’ is evolution in action. Domestic cats and dogs are products of human-guided evolution. So is modern-day corn. If you want more examples of evolution, read up on it.
Abattior wrote: “Zeppo,
I’m afraid you have a rather misguided idea of evolution.
No. That’s all I need to say about that.
The changes you speak of would require thousands of generations to take place. How, then, would you propose testing whether the descendent species has retained the ability to procreate with the anceestor species, when the members of said ancestor species are long dead?
That fact that one cannot perform an experiment which would validate a theory does not validate the theory. The experiments must be performed in order to validate the theory. This is real science. The kind of science where you say ‘well that would take thousands of generations so the experiments can’t be done – but the theory is science fact anyway’ is not real science.
The theory of evolution proposes that humans descended from apes. Very well, what specific changes to the genome occured that caused this to happen? (Hint: Gene mapping) We should be able to develop a model for how this occured and then test it in a lab by forcing mutation via various environmental factors that we know were present during the era of the proposed mutations. We could start with simple species with simple genomes and move on as our understanding developed.
The idea that we should develop a model of what we think happened and then not test it because that would be hard is junk science – pure and simple.
Zeppo, if you want to know how humans descended from apes, it’s really quite simple: it’s a process known as… being born. You see, your mother was an ape, as was your father, what with humans being part of the family homindae, the great apes.
Are you sure you don’t have a misguided idea of evolution?
Abbatoir, bad examples.
Corn – lots of varieties, still corn.
Dogs and cats – lots of varieties, still dogs and cats.
Superbugs – still bugs. Also, every so-called superbug I have been made aware of has also been found to have distinct vulnerabilities occurring simultaneously with its new “defence”.
And it’s still a bacterium of the same type as before. Flu virus is still flu virus, ad nauseam.
Now, you show me a dog that has evolved into a cat, then I’ll be impressed. Sad to say, it hasn’t happened, and won’t. There are so many examples of irreducible complexity in any biology text that it takes more faith to in miracles that something could evolve into something else without ending itself for redundancy or vestigiality, than I will ever have to simply believe in God.
Shane, cats — the family felidae, are taxonomically speaking, a family. Families are made up of genera, and those genera in turn are made up of species. Abbatior gave domestic cats, the species felis catus, as an example of speciation. If you’re attempting to argue against examples of speciation, it’s probably a bad idea to suggest that there are lost of “varieties” of a family, but that they’re all the same family as it makes it look rather a lot like you don’t understand the concept of species.
P.S
The flu virus is also a family.
That fact that one cannot perform an experiment which would validate a theory does not validate the theory.
Except the theory of evolution doesn’t depend on an inability to interbreed between ancestor and dependent species.
To use the ’superbug’ example: we take a collection of bacteria (of a single species) and expose it to a toxin that kills 99.999% of the population. We let the population recover and multiply, and then expose it to the toxin again. Repeat several times. In the end, our culture will be much more resistant than the original culture. This is natural selection in the laboratory.
The mutation that allowed resistance to the toxin was already in existence in the original culture, but it provided no advantage for those bacteria. We introduced the toxin, providing those bacteria an advantage, and ensured that all descendents would carry the mutation.
Shane said:
Corn – lots of varieties, still corn.
They didn’t start out as corn. Early maize grown in Mesoamerica was very different from modern-day corn, and was developed using selective breeding techniques.
Domestic cats today are very different from the original domesticated cats in Egypt. Domestic dogs today are very different from wild wolves.
Incidentally, Zeppo, dogs are a distinct species from wolves, and yet can interbreed and produce fertile hybrids.
Zeppo said:
The theory of evolution proposes that humans descended from apes.
No, it doesn’t. In this one sentence, you described your ignorance of the subject perfectly.
Evolution in action.
http://www.newscientist.com/ch.....e-lab.html
You’re kidding right?
I know perfectly well that our present day varieties of corn are descended from ancient maize. So what? They aren’t different species. You can still take pollen from ancient maize and stick with corn seed and grow reproducing crops. They may look different, but they are not different. Basic genetics, folks.
And as for cats? Get a grip. You know perfectly well I was talking about domestic cats specifically. Same as domestic dogs. The point is a chihuahua looks light years different from an Irish Wolfhound – but you can still mate them and they still produce offspring that are capable of reproduction.
One thing that really ticks me off about the arrogance of proponents of evolution is they wilfullly put up blinders to what anyone who takes a different view believes. Or they just make assumptions and then beat down the straw man. Nobody, and I mean NOBODY (there’s your consensus, enjoy it) denies mircoevolution – otherwise known as adaptation. NOBODY denies selective breeding (which by the way is directed by intelligence, not by environment and “survival of the fittest”). It is MACROEVOLUTION that is the stumbling block – one thing changing into something completely different that is not capable of breeding with what it came from anymore by GENETIC CHANGE, not by physical modification.
There isn’t enough time in the history of the planet, even assuming the longest lifespan of the solar system is true, to win at the lottery of life, as described by evolutionary theorists. There aren’t enough cells, there aren’t enough proteins, there aren’t enough molecules… there aren’t enough atoms! Panspermia can only put off the evolutionary process. The odds of random mutations creating even a single protein out of its component elements is greater than the sum of atoms in the universe.
Shane, I don’t want to make any assumptions, and I’m not entirely sure what you mean by macroevolution and microevolution. You talk about things changing into things that are not able to breed with what they came from, but obviously this could not be applicable to species which reproduce asexually. Could you clear up the dividing line between microevolution and macroevolution for us?
I really wasn’t sure that you were talking about domestic cats, incidentally. As I mentioned, flu viruses form a family, and you mentioned them, so it seemed perfectly logical that you might also mention another family.
Nice to see we can agree on microevolution or adaptation.
Again, two distinct species may retain the ability to interbreed and produce fertile offspring. That is not the definition of ’species’.
An easy example of this cross-species interbreeding is that of ligers and tigons – hybrids of lions and tigers. While the males are infertile, the females are fertile, and can be bred with lions or tigers again. From what you and Zeppo both appear to argue, that means tigers and lions would be the same species.
Ancient maize was most certainly not the same species as modern-day corn. Interbreeding between species and producing fertile offspring is possible, and does not mean they are the same species.
Writes Shane:
There isn’t enough time in the history of the planet, even assuming the longest lifespan of the solar system is true, to win at the lottery of life, as described by evolutionary theorists. There aren’t enough cells, there aren’t enough proteins, there aren’t enough molecules… there aren’t enough atoms! Panspermia can only put off the evolutionary process. The odds of random mutations creating even a single protein out of its component elements is greater than the sum of atoms in the universe.
That, Shane, is ‘argument by credulity’. Anyone with even an elementary background in both biology and probability statistics should be able to recognize that there are probabilities – even if they are extremely small. Even very remote possibilities DO HAPPEN from time to time. (Somewhat snarky writers have observed that “millions to one odds happen nine times out of ten”)
Further, your claims that there is no evidence for MacroEvolution out there is demonstrably denying the evidence that does exist.
I really don’t care if you want to believe that some mythical being created the world – that’s fine with me, but it is weak reasoning to simply ignore the evidence that is out there and then criticizing the “opposing” theory because you can’t be bothered to pay attention to the evidence that has been gathered and documented.
Shane, you said:
“Now, you show me a dog that has evolved into a cat, then I’ll be impressed. Sad to say, it hasn’t happened, and won’t.”
Where did you get the idea that evolutionary theory says this would ever happen? Evolution deals with _populations_, not individuals. Mutations don’t just suddenly rewrite a whole individual’s genome out of the blue, and to observe cats spontaneously converting to dogs or horses becoming fish would actually be in opposition to evolutionary theory.
Secondly, ‘macro’ and ‘micro’ evolution are the same process, but on different time scales. Imagine a 100 m dash versus a 40 km marathon – do you call the former a microrace and the latter a macrorace? Would you accept that microraces occur, while denying that people macroraced, right as a marathon is being broadcast to you on the TV?
Also you said:
“The odds of random mutations creating even a single protein out of its component elements is greater than the sum of atoms in the universe.”
When you say ‘random mutations’, I’m sure you are probably conceptualizing the process as governed by random chance. There are thousands of varieties of proteins; some are more complex than others. Chemistry involving biological molecules produces incredibly complex chemicals, and their interactions only grow in complexity as this happens. With the amount of atoms in the universe and the incomprehensible amount of conditions influencing their interaction, even low probability reactions occur. In essence, trillions of trillions of trillions of ‘trials’ are taking place.
Also, as a side note in general: evolution (changes in life) and abiogenesis (the origin of life) are separate topics. Believe what you will about the origin of existence, life, etc, but I fail to see how observing evolution is grounds for not believing in a divine being.
Folks, I apologize for not getting back to this earlier but personal matters have distracted me as they all too often do these days. I really hope to respond to the request above (although C, if micro and macroevolution is new to you, I have to admit that I’m probably not the one who has to prove my lack of ignorance on the topic!). As for the definition of a species, I’ll note that the ability to offspring to reproduce like offspring two generations ahead was given in my first year university biology text (mules were given as the trick question on the first test, since they cannot reproduce and hence aren’t a species). I understand that even Darwin didn’t like the term species, due to the inconvenience it brought when one assesses his work, but I’ll retain the daggers on that one for the time being. Expect another post after the Order of Canada one…Cheers.
Zeppo said:
The theory of evolution proposes that humans descended from apes.
Abattoir said: No, it doesn’t. In this one sentence, you described your ignorance of the subject perfectly.
Ok, I’m not going to carve this in to wooden blocks for Abattoir but here it is for the rest of y’all. The divergence time for humans and the African apes is about 5 million years ago (according to current science). So if apes (of family homindae) existed 5 MYA but humans did not then what species provided the gene pool from which humans diverged? .tick.tick.tick. Apes! African freakin’ apes!
A definition: Species
Zeppo, the phrase ‘descended from apes’ has different meanings depending on the usage. Creationists seem to take it to mean that humans came from apes as we see them today. This causes confusion in discussions — I believe Abbatoir probably interpreted your statement with this meaning.
It’s far more productive to clarify that ‘humans descended from apes’ should be ‘humans and modern apes share a common ancestor’.
People claim that sharks haven’t changed in 200 million years , so if you want to believe that you came from apes go right ahead.
Please explain why there are still apes , and exactly when and how did apes split off from the commune and start to become us.
What’s really funny is that the same people that mock creation for how we got here , are the same people that also have followers that believe in Aliens seeding the Planet with Human Hybrids that mined Gold in Africa for the Mother Ship orbiting the Earth.
But don’t forget those Muslims , they use the Quran to deny jesus came back from the dead and rose up in the sky to be with god , everyone knows the Quran has the truth because Muhammad rose from the dead and jumped on a winged-Horse and flew to paradise in the sky.
Real prophets ride flying horses , anybody can rise from the dead but the real trick is the flying horse.
Matthew, the reason that I ask about where the line between macroevolution and microevolution lies, is because I’ve often found in these sort of discussions that the definition that anti-evolutionists are using seems to change as the discussion continues, or that each debater has their own personal definition. For example, you and Zeppo have already given two differing examples of “species”. This is the reason that I asked you what definition of species you were working with.
It’s interesting that you mention mules as an example of an animal that falls outside your definition of species because you say they can’t reproduce. If I could show you an example of a fertile mule which has produced viable offspring, would you accept it as evidence of the main point of your article being wrong?
No C, because it seems everyone has conveniently avoided the main point that there’s no pressing reason why we’re teaching evolution in certain grades. Please also read carefully what I referenced: not my own opinion, but that of what I was taught in university (I should probably also note that it was retaught in later classes), which actually makes your issue of everyone having a personal definition on species an issue that surpasses evoskeptics and lays with academic scientists. As for reproducing mules, I’m well aware that some of them can reproduce offspring, although the trait is significantly inconsistent and the issue is capable of rising with each new generation of mule (I’d personally add something to the species definition to address this).
Zeppo,
We did not evolve from African apes. The species that we did evolve from is long since extinct, likely replaced by our ancestors and our cousin species, such as Neanderthals.
We evolved from primates, sure – but not apes. If we had evolved from apes (as many confused by evolution seem to believe) then there should still be humans evolving out of the jungles of Africa. Actually, chimpanzees are our closest living relatives.
Matthew, evolutionary theory is the foundation for all of biology. Not teaching it in a biology classroom would be like neglecting to mention atoms (VSEPR theory!) in a chemistry class. What you are advocating is that biology can only be descriptive, rather than understood.
Matthew, I’m unclear — was the definition that you gave me of species the one that you were working with when you said that:
“The fact is that evolution is still very much stuck in in the past, and will continue to be until it can offer actual testifiable evidence of one species giving way to another over the course of two or more generations.”
If it isn’t, could you provide one please? Otherwise it’s really not very clear what you’re expecting evolutionary scientists to do. You seem to be agreeing that given that mules can reproduce, they’d qualify as a new species under the rules you were taught twice at university. Have I misunderstood you?
As for why evolution should be taught at school, as Shane has already said “Nobody, and I mean NOBODY (there’s your consensus, enjoy it) denies mircoevolution”, so surely we can agree that this at least should be taught?
I guess it’s around now that we should start defining exactly what microevolution means against macroevolution.
Sorry, Zeppo, but where did you get your name????
Is that like a mutant hybrid between Led Zeppelin and Zoso or something?
Is that like a mutant hybrid between Led Zeppelin and Zoso or something?
Zeppo was one of the Marx Brothers and is one of the ancestors of Zeppelin.